68 b) “The pensioners filed various actions, including criminal proceedings, which were rejected, which only shows that they were not filed appropriately.” The considerations of the Court 152. Owing to the difference of opinion that has arisen between the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin and since this is the first case to be processed in its entirety under the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on June 1, 2001, the Court considers it advisable to clarify the matter relating to the possibility of alleging facts or rights that are not included in the application. 153. With regard to the facts that are the substance of this proceeding, this Court considers that it is not admissible to allege new facts, distinct from those presented in the application, without detriment to setting forth those that may explain, clarify or reject the facts that have been mentioned in the application, or be consistent with the claims of the plaintiff. 154. The case of supervening facts is different. These are presented after any of the following briefs has been submitted: application; requests, arguments and evidence, and answer to the application. In this hypothesis, the information can be forwarded to the Court at any stage of the proceeding before judgment has been delivered. 155. Regarding the incorporation of rights other than those included in the application filed by the Commission, the Court considers that the petitioners may invoke such rights. They are the holders of all the rights embodied in the American Convention and, if this were not admissible, it would be an undue restriction of their condition of subjects of international human rights law. It is understood that the foregoing, with regard to other rights, refers to facts that are already contained in the application. 156. The Court is empowered to examine the violation of articles of the Convention that are not included in the briefs of application; requests, arguments and evidence, and answer to the application, based on the iura novit curia principle, solidly supported in international jurisprudence and “which international jurisprudence has used repeatedly [understanding it] in the sense that the judge has the power and even the obligation to apply the pertinent legal provisions in a case, even when the parties do not invoke them expressly”159. 159 Cf. Cantos case, supra note 3, para. 58; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 4, para. 107; Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 76; Eur. Court H.R., Guerra and others v. Italy, Judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p.13, para. 44; Eur. Court H.R., Philis v. Greece, Judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A No. 209, p. 19, para. 56; Eur. Court H.R., Powell and Rayner v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A No. 172, p. 13, para. 29; and the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Judgment of November 19 1998, in Case C-252/96 P, p.7, para. 23, where it is established that “[t]he iura novit curia principle authorizes the civil judge to apply the legal norms he deems appropriate, and also to modify the legal arguments on which the claims of the parties are based, without altering, however, the cause of action or modifying the nature of the problem posed.”